Major Decisions Expected this Summer from Supreme Court
May 1, 1999
In the next two months, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to address
several controversial employment discrimination issues concerning the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VII), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex
or national origin.
One of the issues at stake concerning the ADA is whether measures that
mitigate the effects of an impairment should be considered in determining
whether an employee has a disability entitling the person to protection against
discrimination. Under the ADA, a "disability" is an impairment that
substantially limits one or more major life activities. Because the effect of
many impairments can be mitigated through drugs or other means, the context in
which courts assess the impact of an impairment is critical.
For example, in one case before the Court, two pilots filed suit under the
ADA after United Air Lines (United) rejected their employment applications
because their vision did not meet United's Standards for commercial pilots. A
trial court dismissed the case, concluding that the pilots had no disability
because their vision was 20/20 when they used corrective lenses. The pilots
contend, however, that they have a disability because their vision should be
evaluated without regard to mitigating measures, i.e., corrective lenses. If the
Supreme Court adopts the pilots' position, a broad range of treatable
impairments, such as common vision problems, could qualify as disabilities under
the ADA.
Another ADA case before the Court concerns whether a person who has applied
for Social Security disability benefits can also pursue a claim for disability
discrimination. To obtain full disability benefits, an employee must state that
she is unable to work. To maintain an ADA claim, however, an employee must prove
that she is capable of performing the essential functions of her job with a
reasonable accommodation. Employers have argued that these positions are
inconsistent: an employee who says she is unable to work cannot also claim she
is able to perform the essential functions of her job. Nevertheless, some courts
have allowed employees receiving disability benefits to pursue ADA claims. The
Supreme Court is expected to clarify the circumstances, if any, under which
employees who are collecting disability benefits may also pursue ADA claims.
The Title VII case concerns the type of conduct that justifies an award of
punitive damages in employment discrimination cases. When Congress amended Title
VII in 1991, it authorized awards of punitive damages under the statute for the
first time, but only in cases where the defendant engaged in discrimination with
"malice or reckless indifference" to the rights of the plaintiff. The
question before the Supreme Court is whether Title VII requires a plaintiff to
show that the defendant engaged in some form of egregious conduct to obtain
punitive damages, or whether simple reckless indifference to the laws against
employment discrimination is sufficient. If the latter standard prevails,
punitive damages may be available in most cases where an employee succeeds in
proving intentional discrimination.
Decisions on all of these issues are expected by the end of June.
For more information please call Douglas W. Phillips at 1-888-688-8500.
Related Practices